Bowling ball experiment in nothingness

D

Designer

Temporal Navigator
A problem with relativity.

I really like doing thought experiments to prove or disprove existing scientific theories.

So here is my problem with Einstein relativity.

In the beginning there was only vast and at infinite ends of creation nothingness; nothing but a complete void.

Then all of a sudden two bowling ball came into existence that were fairly heavy.

These bowling balls are stationary with a distance of one meter apart.

These are the only two things in creation along with vast nothingness.

The two bowling balls are named (A) and (B) of equal weight.

bowling ball (A) remain stationary but bowling ball (B) spontaneous started moving away from (A) at near the speed of light.

1. All of a sudden ball (B) got heavy and time slow down with respect to (A) due to Einstein theory.

But wait, there is a real problem with this.

(B) can be viewed as stationary with respect to (A) since there are only two reference points in creation (A) and (B). So now we can say (A) is moving away from (B) at close to the speed of light since there are no other reference points in creation.

2. So if (A) can be viewed with respect to (B) at moving at the speed of light then it must get heavy(A) and time will slow(A) with respect to (B).

This is a complete reversal with Statement 1 since it contradict Statement 2 !

So my question then is does (A) or (B) get heavy with time slowing down. The problem is (A) relative (B) or (B) relative to (A).
The result are total contradictions since weight can't be heavy and light at the same time as well as time going fast and slow on object (A) and (B) at the same time. Its a total reversal!
/ttiforum/images/graemlins/confused.gif
So I'm stumped does anyone have a clear solution to this contradiction.
For anything to work there must be spooky action at a distance.

Thanks,

Designer.

PS replace weight with massiveness.
 
Let me put it another way just as a follow up.

If the rest of creation existed then the moving bowling ball(B) and stationary ball(A) can be determined.

The rest of creation should not matter unless you believe in spooky action at a distance with respect to creation.

All I am saying now things changed if the rest of creation exists or does not exist.

The reason it makes a difference is now we know weather (B) is moving away from (A) or not.

Designer,

Thanks.
 
1. All of a sudden ball (B) got heavy and time slow down with respect to (A) due to Einstein theory.

But wait, there is a real problem with this.

(B) can be viewed as stationary with respect to (A) since there are only two reference points in creation (A) and (B). So now we can say (A) is moving away from (B) at close to the speed of light since there are no other reference points in creation.

2. So if (A) can be viewed with respect to (B) at moving at the speed of light then it must get heavy(A) and time will slow(A) with respect to (B).

This is a complete reversal with Statement 1 since it contradict Statement 2 !

So my question then is does (A) or (B) get heavy with time slowing down. The problem is (A) relative (B) or (B) relative to (A).
Click to expand...

You've stated all of this from the perspective of a third object-observer. An object-observer that does not exist according to your gedanken.

So - who is this observer who is reporting these events?

As an aside, your gedanken is based on Special Relativity rather than General Relativity. There is a difference between the two. Which theory do you want to be addressed?
 
Maybe I'm wrong here, but weight and mass are two different things are they not? My mass is the same but if I goto the moon I weigh 1/6th as much and if I'm in zero g I weigh 0 pounds effectively.
 
Ren,

Good call.

The definition of mass in Newtonian physics, Special Relativity and General Relativity are somewhat different in each case. It sounds odd but it really isn't. Newtonian relativity is a limiting case of Special Relativity and Special Relativity is a limiting case of General Relativity. Only General Relativity treats mass by its full definition.

For now I'll leave it up to Designer to dig a bit more deeply into his question and see if he can figure out the correct answer.

I will give a hint. If photons, light, can escape from a mass at rest (WRT an observer) then photons can escape from the same mass even if it is traveling at the speed of light - or as close to the speed of light that a body with rest mass can travel. In Special & General Relativity even though a body gains mass as it moves at ever increasing velocity WRT the observer it will never suddenly become a black hole due to the mass gain.

The equation E = mc^2 in the above case is a bit more complex. The term "mc^2" is not stated quite this way for a moving body as it approaches high relativistic velocity.
 
So here is my problem with Einstein relativity.

In the beginning there was only vast and at infinite ends of creation nothingness; nothing but a complete void.
Click to expand...

I'll give another hint. The above situation is not covered by General Relativity. The "nothingness" scenario is not present in General Relativity. There is no concept in GR, by the very definition of spacetime, of a time before the Big Bang event. Without spacetime there is no time therefore there cannot be a concept of, "But what happened before the Big Bang?"
 
Designer,

Look over your original post and pay particular attention to section "1." There are some questions that you need to ask yourself about the section that are very important. Think about cause and effect; causal relationships as it applies to the mechanics involved.

We can discuss section "2." after that.

It is, actually, a very good post with valid questions the answers to which aren't so easy to see without looking closely at the scenario.
 
The correct answer, that so many fail to realize, but eventually will understand at least in part, is that you, and Einstein, are ignoring the effect of "conscious perception". This is in fact, key to the solution, since A) without it, nothing exists, and B) with it, everything exists equally, even if it's just a void with two bowling balls. Because, C) conscious perception allows for the inclusion of everything, even if everything perceived in existence is equal to 'nothing'. Understand?
So therefore, and in addition, we know that Conscious perception exists by the simple fact that we have experience (we know that we exist and experience things).
Thence: Conscious perception may be argued to be the 'only' thing in existence, that is, the mind (or conscious observational power)
Thence: Conscious perception may also be argued to be, at least in part, the causation of what are perceived as 'events'.
Remember this also, that, nothing is of single cause. This false belief led even Einstein to focus on singular 'causes' of events or experiences, or, some sort of step by step linear process (such as how time is measured). In fact, everything you perceive or experience is the result of multiple trillions of things happening at the same time. This is in part due to functions at the quantum level, but not entirely since consciousness is also involved (even at this writing, an unresolved issue).
"Time travel", as you call it, is in fact quite possible, and practical, and does not require huge amounts of energy, or any special type of machine. While machines are involved with directing the process, they are not how it is initiated. Also I can mention that while all of you strive for 'time travel', you must understand that brain chemistry is permanently altered by such, and mental health implications can and will result. This of course depends entirely on the test subject and his or her mental status. I can explain the mental health issues in detail, but being here, that is all I am willing to share at this point. Good luck.
 
Designer,

Sorry about that. I thought we were going to have a serious discussion about physics. Apparently not.
 
Sorry Darby for not responding. My Internet was off for a little more than a day.

I have also have another problem with Einstein equation of E = MC^2 but I will bring it up for another day.

I have been here for a while and finally came to the conclusion that the physics of today is lacking in some way in representing reality.

All I can say for now is that spooky action (between objects) at a distance is required to be implemented for mass and time dilation to be determined without an observer.

Designer.
 
Creating Massiveness changes the structure of matter. How can this happen with just movement of objects at a distance. Could it just look more massive which could be ok but be more massive is another story all together.
Lets say as A and B separating at near the speed of light when then (A) pops out of existence leaving (B) by itself.
Does that then mean object B mass and time dilation resets back. That just spooking action at a distance.

How can object (A) make object (B) heavy at a distance. Its really crazy. And counter intuitive.
And note there is a complete void between them no connection to induce massiveness in object (B) from (A).
And anyhow as the objects separate you would think logically that they would have less effect on each other with some kind of squares law.

Designer.
 
Back
Top